Coronavirus Live Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
It would be helpful and encouraging if all these dashboards as well as the Death Scroll on all news shows included the Number of Recovered as well as the Number with No or Little Symptoms. All these dashboards are good for is to perpetuate the doom and gloom and a little bit of awareness if someone has been under a rock for the last 4 months.

I am not a doctor or qualified expert but my gut feel is that before this is over or they find a vaccine, we will all have had it, fought it off or succumbed to it.

My wife has a cousin in the hospital in Minnesota attempting to recover right now.
 
Shadowfax said:
It would be helpful and encouraging if all these dashboards as well as the Death Scroll on all news shows included the Number of Recovered as well as the Number with No or Little Symptoms. All these dashboards are good for is to perpetuate the doom and gloom and a little bit of awareness if someone has been under a rock for the last 4 months.
Click to expand...

From Worldometer. The data shows the number recovered. As the majority people with little or no symptoms are not being tested, this data would both difficult, if not impossible, to obtain and a non-representative sample.

Worldometers.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Worldometers.jpg
    Worldometers.jpg
    204.6 KB · Views: 14
Calvin said:
PC this is a great resource for the U.S. In FL it has a link back to the map I've been using. Very useful. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Joe, if you skip over to the next page, you can download a .csv file for all the states for that day, and also one with the no. of cases on since they started tracking with testing

I've been looking at this to look at trends of the increase across various states.

Link is here: https://covidtracking.com/api/
 
All these data sources are interesting, but they are at most suggestive. The continued lack of testing availability in the US means that total cases are vastly underestimated/underreported, and death cases are underreported as well, although probably by a lower multiplier (not all deaths that are due to COVID19 are reported that way, since not all of the critically ill or deceased are being tested)
 
rbbert said:
All these data sources are interesting, but they are at most suggestive. The continued lack of testing availability in the US means that total cases are vastly underestimated/underreported, and death cases are underreported as well, although probably by a lower multiplier (not all deaths that are due to COVID19 are reported that way, since not all of the critically ill or deceased are being tested)
Click to expand...

Totally agree. Still surprised that more testing is not being done in this country.

Btw, I Tried ordering masks today via Amazon; 3 weeks wait! We are now Back to the USSR!
 
I agree with Rbbert and Nicoff that the amount and TAT for testing in the USA is still insufficient for 1) identifying people with COVID-19 that are acutely ill and 2) proper epidemiological testing and contact tracing.

California at this moment has only completed 29,254 tests and has >57,400 PENDING test results. This is unacceptable for the 5th largest economy in the world with a population of 40 million people.

This is a major QUALITY failure. From LEAN process flow perspective, with a TAT of 7 days (!) the entire testing process has too long a specimen to results lead time to effectively manage people's health. The process cycle time is too long because...we don't have enough sample prep reagents and nasal swabs! The process is also likely a "batch & queue process" and it is TOO slow. We need to make testing LEAN.

Today I personally wrote to CA Governor Gavin Newsom and offered my services as a Six Sigma Black Belt and...if he needs it, a molecular biologist. I also offered to go in to my local testing lab and run tests if that will help.

We will see if he writes back.
 
Mr Peabody said:
Rob, why do you say we don't have an effective Flu shot?
Click to expand...

The 2020 Flu Shot is only 46% effective so whether or not you get one you still have greater than a 50% chance of getting the flu.

Effective would mean 100% or close but not 46%

It is a crap shoot each year for them to decide what mix to include and they seem to be as much wrong each year as they are right.

I stopped getting the shot 15 years ago when my wife stopped actively working in the medical field.

I got the Flu 1 time in those 15 years so my chances were as good or better than those that get the shot every year.

https://www.insider.com/how-effective-is-the-flu-shot
 
Shadowfax said:
The 2020 Flu Shot is only 46% effective so whether or not you get one you still have greater than a 50% chance of getting the flu.

Effective would mean 100% or close but not 46%

It is a crap shoot each year for them to decide what mix to include and they seem to be as much wrong each year as they are right.

I stopped getting the shot 15 years ago when my wife stopped actively working in the medical field.

I got the Flu 1 time in those 15 years so my chances were as good or better than those that get the shot every year.

https://www.insider.com/how-effective-is-the-flu-shot
Click to expand...

This is the kind of rhetoric that costs lives in current pandemic and in yearly flu epidemic.
 
I get my Flu shot every year, I figure some protection is better than none. And, it was shocking to realize how many people die in the U.S. each year due to Flu.

Now back to your regularly scheduled C19 post.
 
Shadowfax said:
It was an answer to Mr Peabody's question with facts. Had nothing to do with the current situation.
Click to expand...

Shadowfax said:
The 2020 Flu Shot is only 46% effective so whether or not you get one you still have greater than a 50% chance of getting the flu.

Effective would mean 100% or close but not 46%
Click to expand...

Flu shot effectiveness varies by year. Just picking one year and say it’s only 46% is incomplete fact at best. By the way, 46% is still 46% better than 0%, which is no flu shot.

17d906872b83fed687c59d4887051e24.jpg


Shadowfax said:
Effective would mean 100% or close but not 46%

It is a crap shoot each year for them to decide what mix to include and they seem to be as much wrong each year as they are right.

I stopped getting the shot 15 years ago when my wife stopped actively working in the medical field.

I got the Flu 1 time in those 15 years so my chances were as good or better than those that get the shot every year.
Click to expand...

These aren’t facts. These are opinions and dangerous ones.
 
kzhtoo said:
Flu shot effectiveness varies by year. Just picking one year and say it’s only 46% is incomplete fact at best. By the way, 46% is still 46% better than 0%, which is no flu shot.





These aren’t facts. These are opinions and dangerous ones.
Click to expand...

Sorry to have to disagree. If not getting a Flu Shot gives you a 50/50 chance of getting it, getting the shot and having 46% still get the Flue means No shot gives you close to the same odds as getting one.

Did you even read the article I linked? I didn't make up the facts.

And yes, in my opinion, 100% or at least close would mean Effective but not 46%. And it is a crap shoot each year because they have to pick the 3 or 4 strands that they "Think" are needed a year ahead of time and they are rarely spot on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top